Total Posts:13|Showing Posts:1-13
Jump to topic:

Terrorism

ColeTrain
Posts: 4,320
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2016 11:50:15 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
I had to give a speech on terrorism today. I'll write out some of the outline I had... The speech followed a Problems, Causes, Solution format, so I'll do it in that order.

Problems:

1. Life - According to the the Institute of Economics and Peace, in 2014 alone, there were 32,685 terrorism-linked deaths, more than has ever been recorded. Since 2013, terrorism has increased 80% in terms of activity, and has spread further than just the Middle East, with attacks in Paris and even the US, though 78% of deaths in the past year have been in areas where terrorist groups are quite active (Iraq, Nigeria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria). [http://economicsandpeace.org...] This toll on life is simply unacceptable.

2. Psychological - Accompanied with any such attack, there is an irrepressible fear of either a) being attacked again, or b) the ramifications of the attack. Irina Ioana of the National Defense University in Bucharest notes in May of 2015 that terrorist-related incidents can cause many psychological detriments, including PTSD, depressive disorders, anxiety, stress, and sleeping disorders such as insomnia. [http://www.afahc.ro...] The fear extends past a momentary emotion to an actual state of being.

3. Economic - Perhaps the most concerning broadscale effect, terrorism takes a devastating toll on economy. There is frequently damage costs to be dealt with following an attack, but that's not the only concerning issue. Todd Sandler of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis explains that there can become a higher risk of trade when an act of terror is either executed or the threat is prevalent. He also asserts that there are some concerns in regards to the productivity rates of countries affected by terrorism. [https://research.stlouisfed.org...] It is concerning to realize that the effects of terrorism are extrapolated with extended consequences that are not directly related to the act itself.

More of these harms are typified by Dotan Persitz of Tel Aviv University, where suggested in 2003 that Israel's gross domestic product (GDP) would have been roughly 8.6% higher in that year had there been no terrorist attacks since 1994. Over the span of only 9 years, there was a speculated annual lag in GDP of nearly 1%. [http://www.tau.ac.il...] Sophisticated society cannot allow for such perpetual harm from an issue that is potentially solveable.

Walter Enders of the University of Alabama proliferates these concerns in a paper published in 2012, in which he notes a progressive trend of government spending spurring from terrorist attacks. The cost of terror is not only short-term, but long-term as countries have to deal with prevention of terror and possibly counterterrorism as well. Likewise, the paper indicates a plausible regressive trend of tourism in correlation to an increase in terrorism. [http://www.socsci.uci.edu...] While this is essentially pure logic, it's a notable trend that serves to deplete a reservoir of revenue that originally would benefit the country.

Causes:

1. Political Instability - Nauros F. Campos of Brunel University in 2009 explains that domestic political instability has a negative effect on aversion of terrorism. In fact, he assures it makes a nation more susceptible to terrorist attacks when the country is viewed as shaky, and is supposedly the leading cause for terrorism. He also notes that situations which divide the country also increase the likelihood of terrorism as well. [http://ftp.iza.org...]

2. Economics - Not only are economic concerns an effect of terrorism, they are also a root cause. Sacit Hadi Akdede of Gazi University informs us in an aggregated panel analysis that countries with high unemployment, severe income inequality, and high population record higher occurrences of terror incidents. Conversely, countries associated with a higher GDP per capita, higher urbanization, and objectively better education (i.e. more expenditures in that area) see less terrorism. [http://content.ebscohost.com...] This seems to indicate that worse economic situations lead to a more open target for crime, similar to how poverty can lead people to crime.

Solutions

1. Model Approach - We need to model our approach of solvency in the US after Israel. Israel is a country that has experienced a lot of terrorism, particularly because of its perceived religious importance. Israeli politician Danny Danon explains a simple outline of how the US and others from the international community can help prevent terrorism.

1. Improve intelligence - Perhaps the most significant piece of his suggestions, it is imperative that leaders are aware of what is going on outside of their sphere of influence first. Without forewarning, terrorist attacks can come as a total surprise.

2. Security authorities must profile - He concedes this may not sound politically correct, but acknowledges its effectiveness. There are simply different extremist groups or cultures that are inherently and statistically more violent and attached to terrorism than others, and countries must compensate for that.

3. Change our mindset - It's true that in the US, we tend to associate freedom as an unalienable right, as do some other Western cultures. However, in an effort for the government to fulfill its obligation to keep its citizens safe (and for the interest of our individual safety as well) it may sometimes become necessary to compromise some of our freedoms and allow our (and the potential terrorists') bags and things to be checked at airports and other similar locations. [http://nypost.com...]

Israel has experienced considerable levels of success in preventing, at the very least, more terrorism by implementing and utilizing these methods. Other methods of the Israeli government that could be beneficial are some of the air traffic restrictions. For example, the pilot is locked into the cockpit so terrorist cannot enter the cockpit by force (steel doors, etc.) and also so the pilot cannot mess up and accidentally allow the entrance to the cockpit while the door is opened.

2. Immigration Reform - This is a push-button issue for many, and I'm aware of that. However, we can't let everyone in with expectations of nothing going wrong. There are simply individuals with ill-intent towards the United States as well as other nations. Steven A. Camarota outlined to the US Senate three specific areas in which the United States (and logically other nations) should be careful in monitoring.
1. Overseas - It pays to be aware of what is happening elsewhere, similar to Danon's first suggestion.
2. On the border - The US border is a mess, and while a wall might not be the correct solution, something needs to be done to ensure potential terrorists are not granted entrance into the US.
3. Inside the country - It's just as important as the two aforementioned areas. We have to make sure the inside of the US is spotless (or at least as close to that as possible) in terms of negative or dangerous influence inside the country. [http://cis.org...]

Reform doesn't have to be radical, and we need to maintain a balance in all of these solutions we've mentioned. We can't become radical in our endeavors, but we need to make sure that we, as a collective nation, are doing all we can to prevent terrorism from affecting our countrymen.

=====

That's about all I had... any thoughts?
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
FortisAnimi
Posts: 195
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2016 12:30:48 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/8/2016 11:50:15 PM, ColeTrain wrote:

1. Okay, the fact that terrorism is taking lives around the world is a given, and I"m glad that you mentioned that almost all of it originates from the Middle East, because saying otherwise would be typical of a hard right wing Republican.

2. The psychological effects of not being associated with an attack but being paranoid of one is an unfortunate human condition. However, sympathy is due to those who have been directly affected by attacks. This is a minor point of interest in the speech so I will continue.

3. Destabilization is rooted within the economic output of the nations in the Middle East. I"m sure you could pull up some tangible statistics about the economic productivity and growth from Saddam"s regime to the caliphate taking control. Tourism will stop if there is a threat of terrorism that is real and imminent, but it will not stop if the government displays their force or has proven their capability in preventatory measures.

4. Political instability is a huge side effect of terrorism, but nothing unites a nation quite like it. In my opinion, the destabilization in the Middle East is because of the incessant push for democracy by the United States and the military intervention that brings much collateral damage (civilian deaths, western hatred).

5. Yeah, countries with low literacy rates and inadequate education, combined with an almost inexistent job field is sure to make for a good terrorist breeding ground, because the promise of money and safety for their families (if applicable) is too good to pass up on.

6. Your claim that the U.S. should model itself after Israel is good at first, but the intricacies of that nation are hard to grasp. The reason Israel is so effective in its elimination of terrorism is because there is a religious majority opposing a religious minority, the religious minority refuses to recognize Israel and repeatedly attacks their citizens and stakes claims in territory within the nation. The U.S. has a very different level of ethnic diversity, and that is the reason that the immigration reforms proposed by the Republicans seem so implausible. Racial profiling is a given. Government surveillance is a necessity, and it is always used in our best interest. We should not adopt an isolationist policy (we are so deeply embedded in world affairs that it is too late to go back now), but we should equip nations in the region to go about the independent peacekeeping in their regions. That should be our main goal, not to use an iron fist to beat democracy into the region. I think that a wall should be built, and the ease of citizenship should be increased through the cooperation of Mexican and U.S. governments to properly vet immigrants.

7. Overseas intelligence is imperative, I agree. However, if we should choose to make any changes to our immigration policy regarding a specific ethnic group committing acts of violence, it should not be in such an egregious way as to ban said ethnic group from traveling to the U.S. or acquiring citizenship.

8. Domestically, surveillance by the government is a must. If we are to gather any intelligence about the inner workings of terrorist cells within the nation the government has to have the ability to collect and analyze data for prevention.
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,320
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2016 2:18:02 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/9/2016 12:30:48 AM, FortisAnimi wrote:
At 2/8/2016 11:50:15 PM, ColeTrain wrote:

1. Okay, the fact that terrorism is taking lives around the world is a given, and I"m glad that you mentioned that almost all of it originates from the Middle East, because saying otherwise would be typical of a hard right wing Republican.

Haha, okay. Most of it originates there, but the effects are spread out.

2. The psychological effects of not being associated with an attack but being paranoid of one is an unfortunate human condition.

How can this be said of PTSD? It's a common illness that comes about without choice, not a result of an individual being mentally weak.

However, sympathy is due to those who have been directly affected by attacks. This is a minor point of interest in the speech so I will continue.

I feel that it's worthy of more importance than you give it. Society can be weakened by terrorism. Psychologically, individuals can begin to feel they are inadequate and incapable of combating terrorism.

3. Destabilization is rooted within the economic output of the nations in the Middle East. I"m sure you could pull up some tangible statistics about the economic productivity and growth from Saddam"s regime to the caliphate taking control.

Well, the speech is given, I can't change anything now. However, pre-existing domestic instability can be weak targets to get a message across.

Tourism will stop if there is a threat of terrorism that is real and imminent, but it will not stop if the government displays their force or has proven their capability in preventatory measures.

What I'm saying is that the government has an obligation to intervene when necessary. Allowing it for too long can make society doubtful and encourage further terrorism. Revenue from all sources is cut from terrorism, tourism was just one example. I don't really see what you're saying here...

4. Political instability is a huge side effect of terrorism, but nothing unites a nation quite like it.

It's more of a cause than a result. As I mentioned earlier, if an unstable nation is viewed as a target, it becomes a cause of terrorism. It can be a result, but it's minute. Areas that are attacked by terrorists are already weak, otherwise the terrorists a) wouldn't attack there, and/or b) wouldn't be *able* to attack there. The US wasn't viewed as a *weak* nation at the time of 9/11, but it was exposed as such after the attacks were conducted successfully. You're right, it did unite the nation afterwards, but it's evident the US wasn't sewn of the fabric we thought it was.

In my opinion, the destabilization in the Middle East is because of the incessant push for democracy by the United States and the military intervention that brings much collateral damage (civilian deaths, western hatred).

That's only a small fraction of the problem. If you recall correctly, promotion of democracy didn't come until after 9/11, or at least to any meaningful degree. Bush initiated the elevation of such promotion because he perceived terrorism as a problem resulting from the lack of democracy and sufficient rule. He realized that, and sought to, for the good of the international community, promote what is viewed as a preferable form of government. While I agree the War on Terror (and subsequent democratization) is ineffective (the former moreso than the latter), I don't think either of those are the driving factor spurring terrorism. Cultural divide and extremism (yes, I said extremism) are FAR more impactful than anything the US can do or has done. It's really the fault of extremist groups that there is Western hatred, and the fault of incompetent military strategy that there are civilian deaths.

5. Yeah, countries with low literacy rates and inadequate education, combined with an almost inexistent job field is sure to make for a good terrorist breeding ground, because the promise of money and safety for their families (if applicable) is too good to pass up on.

Yep.

6. Your claim that the U.S. should model itself after Israel is good at first, but the intricacies of that nation are hard to grasp. The reason Israel is so effective in its elimination of terrorism is because there is a religious majority opposing a religious minority, the religious minority refuses to recognize Israel and repeatedly attacks their citizens and stakes claims in territory within the nation.

Who are you saying are the minority? Don't worry, I'm not worried about political correctness. You can say "Muslim" and "Christian." Once you clarify that, I'll be much better suited to respond.

The U.S. has a very different level of ethnic diversity, and that is the reason that the immigration reforms proposed by the Republicans seem so implausible.

The US is past diversity. I feel that people are too worried about everything being fair rather than doing what's best for the populace. They're letting egalitarianism get in the way of utilitarianism and pragmatism. That's simply unethical when you promote equality over wellbeing. Life simply isn't fair, and you can't make it that way.

Racial profiling is a given.

It's also necessary, in some cases. There are simply differences in races, cultures, etc. Fact is fact. Percentage-wise, relative to population, the black populace of the US commit more crime than whites. I realize there is definitely an environment influence that causes this, but it's still fact, and, no, it's not racism. I have just as much respect for black people as white people. I'm not saying we need to racially profile against blacks, specifically, but against races/cultures that are more prone to terrorism. In this case, it's logical to profile radical Islamic extremists. They simply ARE more likely to commit an act of terror.

Government surveillance is a necessity, and it is always used in our best interest.

Do you really believe this?

We should not adopt an isolationist policy (we are so deeply embedded in world affairs that it is too late to go back now),

It's preferable to interventionism.

but we should equip nations in the region to go about the independent peacekeeping in their regions.

I can support this more than US intervention.

That should be our main goal, not to use an iron fist to beat democracy into the region. I think that a wall should be built, and the ease of citizenship should be increased through the cooperation of Mexican and U.S. governments to properly vet immigrants.

Promotion =/= coercion. If done properly, there is nothing wrong with what Bush intended (the promotion of the greatest government).

7. Overseas intelligence is imperative, I agree. However, if we should choose to make any changes to our immigration policy regarding a specific ethnic group committing acts of violence, it should not be in such an egregious way as to ban said ethnic group from traveling to the U.S. or acquiring citizenship.

We shouldn't overreach our logical boundaries, I think that's a given. As I mentioned in my speech, we have to have a balance. It is good, though, to be aware... rather, it is very necessary.

8. Domestically, surveillance by the government is a must. If we are to gather any intelligence about the inner workings of terrorist cells within the nation the government has to have the ability to collect and analyze data for prevention.

To a degree, you're right. But, pending your answer to the question I posed above, I'll have more response to this.
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
CodingSource
Posts: 350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2016 7:48:59 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
How would you respond more if you're no longer active? What a sad thing. 100% winning ratio in 60 debates, 13 draws and undefeated. Man, you could have been one of the best debaters in DDO.
If computers have no doors or fences, who needs Windows and Gates?

I have a 10-0-0 debate record with an ELO ranking of 2,814. From 610th during my first two-week stay, I am now 326th in the Debates Leaderboard: http://www.debate.org...
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,320
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2016 1:46:03 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/9/2016 7:48:59 PM, CodingSource wrote:
How would you respond more if you're no longer active?

It was temporary. :)

What a sad thing. 100% winning ratio in 60 debates, 13 draws and undefeated. Man, you could have been one of the best debaters in DDO.

Haha, thanks, but I don't believe I'm that talented.

All that said, I'd really like some feedback other than one response, so consider this a BUMP.
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
slo1
Posts: 4,354
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2016 2:33:34 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
32k annual lives lost world wide is acceptible. A million plus due to malaria is not.

In terms of deaths and economic costs there are bigger fish to fry for the west as long as Islamic terrorism is mostly contained to localities in middle east especially considering we exasperated the problem in the middle east
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,320
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2016 3:24:24 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/12/2016 2:33:34 AM, slo1 wrote:
32k annual lives lost world wide is acceptible. A million plus due to malaria is not.

32k preventable deaths is not permissible. I think we can do a lot to prevent terrorism if we implement policies similar to Israel and reform our immigration policy to be more restrictive. You're right, illnesses such as malaria are huge problems as well.

In terms of deaths and economic costs there are bigger fish to fry for the west as long as Islamic terrorism is mostly contained to localities in middle east especially considering we exasperated the problem in the middle east

What are these "bigger fish"? As I explained, these terrorist attacks aren't contained to the Middle East. Terrorism policy is applicable to those in the US, Europe, and around the world. I mean, seriously... the most deadly terrorist organization isn't even in the Middle East.
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
slo1
Posts: 4,354
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2016 4:23:29 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/12/2016 3:24:24 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 2/12/2016 2:33:34 AM, slo1 wrote:
32k annual lives lost world wide is acceptible. A million plus due to malaria is not.

32k preventable deaths is not permissible. I think we can do a lot to prevent terrorism if we implement policies similar to Israel and reform our immigration policy to be more restrictive. You're right, illnesses such as malaria are huge problems as well.

In terms of deaths and economic costs there are bigger fish to fry for the west as long as Islamic terrorism is mostly contained to localities in middle east especially considering we exasperated the problem in the middle east

What are these "bigger fish"? As I explained, these terrorist attacks aren't contained to the Middle East. Terrorism policy is applicable to those in the US, Europe, and around the world. I mean, seriously... the most deadly terrorist organization isn't even in the Middle East.

The bigger fish in terms of deaths and economic costs.
Malaria
Diabetics
Traffic collisions
Preventable medical errors

Hell just changing the law around trans fat saves more people than instituting draconian laws to eliminate terrorism, even more so if looking only at the US.

There is no reason for the US to further restrict freedom and spend more to prevent terrorism when they could apply those resources to preventing medical errors and save tenfold if not hundreds of thousands of lives in just the US.

That is why this entire GOP response to San Bernardino shows they lack judgement and knowledge.
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,320
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2016 9:40:27 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/12/2016 4:23:29 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 2/12/2016 3:24:24 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 2/12/2016 2:33:34 AM, slo1 wrote:
32k annual lives lost world wide is acceptible. A million plus due to malaria is not.

32k preventable deaths is not permissible. I think we can do a lot to prevent terrorism if we implement policies similar to Israel and reform our immigration policy to be more restrictive. You're right, illnesses such as malaria are huge problems as well.

In terms of deaths and economic costs there are bigger fish to fry for the west as long as Islamic terrorism is mostly contained to localities in middle east especially considering we exasperated the problem in the middle east

What are these "bigger fish"? As I explained, these terrorist attacks aren't contained to the Middle East. Terrorism policy is applicable to those in the US, Europe, and around the world. I mean, seriously... the most deadly terrorist organization isn't even in the Middle East.

The bigger fish in terms of deaths and economic costs.
Malaria
Diabetics
Traffic collisions
Preventable medical errors

This should be a fallacy, if it isn't. If it is, I can't find the name. Just because problem A is objectively *worse* than problem B (or C, D, etc.) doesn't mean problem A doesn't need to be dealt with. Perhaps some of the issues you mention are more pressing, perhaps not. The fact is, it's irrelevant to the OP.

just changing the law around trans fat saves more people than instituting draconian laws to eliminate terrorism, even more so if looking only at the US.

Draconian? How are any of the proposals I mentioned draconian?

There is no reason for the US to further restrict freedom and spend more to prevent terrorism when they could apply those resources to preventing medical errors and save tenfold if not hundreds of thousands of lives in just the US.

Allowing unlimited freedom at the expense of other lives isn't acceptable. And besides, dealing with pressing issues are a problem that only the government can fix. Individuals can't help themselves from being attacked when the government doesn't do anything meaningful to help. I'm not advocating for interventionism. I'm advocating that the US take necessary measures to prevent terrorism from becoming a bigger problem than it already is.

That is why this entire GOP response to San Bernardino shows they lack judgement and knowledge.

Then what response would you support? If you agree that the US should have open borders and that we should have no surveillance or checks at any time, then what is going to stop terrorism?
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
slo1
Posts: 4,354
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2016 1:33:21 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/15/2016 9:40:27 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 2/12/2016 4:23:29 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 2/12/2016 3:24:24 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 2/12/2016 2:33:34 AM, slo1 wrote:
32k annual lives lost world wide is acceptible. A million plus due to malaria is not.

32k preventable deaths is not permissible. I think we can do a lot to prevent terrorism if we implement policies similar to Israel and reform our immigration policy to be more restrictive. You're right, illnesses such as malaria are huge problems as well.

In terms of deaths and economic costs there are bigger fish to fry for the west as long as Islamic terrorism is mostly contained to localities in middle east especially considering we exasperated the problem in the middle east

What are these "bigger fish"? As I explained, these terrorist attacks aren't contained to the Middle East. Terrorism policy is applicable to those in the US, Europe, and around the world. I mean, seriously... the most deadly terrorist organization isn't even in the Middle East.

The bigger fish in terms of deaths and economic costs.
Malaria
Diabetics
Traffic collisions
Preventable medical errors

This should be a fallacy, if it isn't. If it is, I can't find the name. Just because problem A is objectively *worse* than problem B (or C, D, etc.) doesn't mean problem A doesn't need to be dealt with. Perhaps some of the issues you mention are more pressing, perhaps not. The fact is, it's irrelevant to the OP.


just changing the law around trans fat saves more people than instituting draconian laws to eliminate terrorism, even more so if looking only at the US.

Draconian? How are any of the proposals I mentioned draconian?

There is no reason for the US to further restrict freedom and spend more to prevent terrorism when they could apply those resources to preventing medical errors and save tenfold if not hundreds of thousands of lives in just the US.

Allowing unlimited freedom at the expense of other lives isn't acceptable. And besides, dealing with pressing issues are a problem that only the government can fix. Individuals can't help themselves from being attacked when the government doesn't do anything meaningful to help. I'm not advocating for interventionism. I'm advocating that the US take necessary measures to prevent terrorism from becoming a bigger problem than it already is.

That is why this entire GOP response to San Bernardino shows they lack judgement and knowledge.

Then what response would you support? If you agree that the US should have open borders and that we should have no surveillance or checks at any time, then what is going to stop terrorism?

I wouldn't stop doing what we are doing. Maybe tweak some things. I'm just questioning whether the gains from doing more will be worth the costs. Since 9/ 11 terrorism in the US has by mostly been contained.
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,320
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2016 3:21:33 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/16/2016 1:33:21 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 2/15/2016 9:40:27 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 2/12/2016 4:23:29 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 2/12/2016 3:24:24 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 2/12/2016 2:33:34 AM, slo1 wrote:
32k annual lives lost world wide is acceptible. A million plus due to malaria is not.

32k preventable deaths is not permissible. I think we can do a lot to prevent terrorism if we implement policies similar to Israel and reform our immigration policy to be more restrictive. You're right, illnesses such as malaria are huge problems as well.

In terms of deaths and economic costs there are bigger fish to fry for the west as long as Islamic terrorism is mostly contained to localities in middle east especially considering we exasperated the problem in the middle east

What are these "bigger fish"? As I explained, these terrorist attacks aren't contained to the Middle East. Terrorism policy is applicable to those in the US, Europe, and around the world. I mean, seriously... the most deadly terrorist organization isn't even in the Middle East.

The bigger fish in terms of deaths and economic costs.
Malaria
Diabetics
Traffic collisions
Preventable medical errors

This should be a fallacy, if it isn't. If it is, I can't find the name. Just because problem A is objectively *worse* than problem B (or C, D, etc.) doesn't mean problem A doesn't need to be dealt with. Perhaps some of the issues you mention are more pressing, perhaps not. The fact is, it's irrelevant to the OP.


just changing the law around trans fat saves more people than instituting draconian laws to eliminate terrorism, even more so if looking only at the US.

Draconian? How are any of the proposals I mentioned draconian?

There is no reason for the US to further restrict freedom and spend more to prevent terrorism when they could apply those resources to preventing medical errors and save tenfold if not hundreds of thousands of lives in just the US.

Allowing unlimited freedom at the expense of other lives isn't acceptable. And besides, dealing with pressing issues are a problem that only the government can fix. Individuals can't help themselves from being attacked when the government doesn't do anything meaningful to help. I'm not advocating for interventionism. I'm advocating that the US take necessary measures to prevent terrorism from becoming a bigger problem than it already is.

That is why this entire GOP response to San Bernardino shows they lack judgement and knowledge.

Then what response would you support? If you agree that the US should have open borders and that we should have no surveillance or checks at any time, then what is going to stop terrorism?

I wouldn't stop doing what we are doing. Maybe tweak some things. I'm just questioning whether the gains from doing more will be worth the costs. Since 9/ 11 terrorism in the US has by mostly been contained.

It was before 9/11 as well, though. Terrorism as a whole has increased a lot lately, and we've seen it in the US, too. San Bernadino, for example. The chances of it entering the US more than it already has is pretty good, solely because we've seen an increase in terrorism WORLDWIDE, not contained to the Middle East. We should take preventionist action now, rather than paying for the consequences later. As for the costs, neither of the things I mentioned would be very costly. Immigration reform and surveillance -- neither of the two (under my proposal) are draconian or excessively costly.
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
slo1
Posts: 4,354
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2016 12:17:01 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/16/2016 3:21:33 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 2/16/2016 1:33:21 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 2/15/2016 9:40:27 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 2/12/2016 4:23:29 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 2/12/2016 3:24:24 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 2/12/2016 2:33:34 AM, slo1 wrote:
32k annual lives lost world wide is acceptible. A million plus due to malaria is not.

32k preventable deaths is not permissible. I think we can do a lot to prevent terrorism if we implement policies similar to Israel and reform our immigration policy to be more restrictive. You're right, illnesses such as malaria are huge problems as well.

In terms of deaths and economic costs there are bigger fish to fry for the west as long as Islamic terrorism is mostly contained to localities in middle east especially considering we exasperated the problem in the middle east

What are these "bigger fish"? As I explained, these terrorist attacks aren't contained to the Middle East. Terrorism policy is applicable to those in the US, Europe, and around the world. I mean, seriously... the most deadly terrorist organization isn't even in the Middle East.

The bigger fish in terms of deaths and economic costs.
Malaria
Diabetics
Traffic collisions
Preventable medical errors

This should be a fallacy, if it isn't. If it is, I can't find the name. Just because problem A is objectively *worse* than problem B (or C, D, etc.) doesn't mean problem A doesn't need to be dealt with. Perhaps some of the issues you mention are more pressing, perhaps not. The fact is, it's irrelevant to the OP.


just changing the law around trans fat saves more people than instituting draconian laws to eliminate terrorism, even more so if looking only at the US.

Draconian? How are any of the proposals I mentioned draconian?

There is no reason for the US to further restrict freedom and spend more to prevent terrorism when they could apply those resources to preventing medical errors and save tenfold if not hundreds of thousands of lives in just the US.

Allowing unlimited freedom at the expense of other lives isn't acceptable. And besides, dealing with pressing issues are a problem that only the government can fix. Individuals can't help themselves from being attacked when the government doesn't do anything meaningful to help. I'm not advocating for interventionism. I'm advocating that the US take necessary measures to prevent terrorism from becoming a bigger problem than it already is.

That is why this entire GOP response to San Bernardino shows they lack judgement and knowledge.

Then what response would you support? If you agree that the US should have open borders and that we should have no surveillance or checks at any time, then what is going to stop terrorism?

I wouldn't stop doing what we are doing. Maybe tweak some things. I'm just questioning whether the gains from doing more will be worth the costs. Since 9/ 11 terrorism in the US has by mostly been contained.

It was before 9/11 as well, though. Terrorism as a whole has increased a lot lately, and we've seen it in the US, too. San Bernadino, for example. The chances of it entering the US more than it already has is pretty good, solely because we've seen an increase in terrorism WORLDWIDE, not contained to the Middle East. We should take preventionist action now, rather than paying for the consequences later. As for the costs, neither of the things I mentioned would be very costly. Immigration reform and surveillance -- neither of the two (under my proposal) are draconian or excessively costly.

If that is the case we should begin profiling radical right wing males as they have killed more Americans in the last 10 years than radical Islamic terrorists.

That means all gun sales should be tracked including adding technology to track a guns location.

BTW you didn't outline much specifics. You mention that we should have Israel's model. That by the way includes punishing family members of terrorists. Dylan Roof's family home should be razed just like all the terrorists that took over the federal park on OR.

Realize I'm being facetious, but the sauce for the goose is the sauce for the gander.
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,320
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2016 1:56:37 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/16/2016 12:17:01 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 2/16/2016 3:21:33 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 2/16/2016 1:33:21 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 2/15/2016 9:40:27 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 2/12/2016 4:23:29 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 2/12/2016 3:24:24 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 2/12/2016 2:33:34 AM, slo1 wrote:
32k annual lives lost world wide is acceptible. A million plus due to malaria is not.

32k preventable deaths is not permissible. I think we can do a lot to prevent terrorism if we implement policies similar to Israel and reform our immigration policy to be more restrictive. You're right, illnesses such as malaria are huge problems as well.

In terms of deaths and economic costs there are bigger fish to fry for the west as long as Islamic terrorism is mostly contained to localities in middle east especially considering we exasperated the problem in the middle east

What are these "bigger fish"? As I explained, these terrorist attacks aren't contained to the Middle East. Terrorism policy is applicable to those in the US, Europe, and around the world. I mean, seriously... the most deadly terrorist organization isn't even in the Middle East.

The bigger fish in terms of deaths and economic costs.
Malaria
Diabetics
Traffic collisions
Preventable medical errors

This should be a fallacy, if it isn't. If it is, I can't find the name. Just because problem A is objectively *worse* than problem B (or C, D, etc.) doesn't mean problem A doesn't need to be dealt with. Perhaps some of the issues you mention are more pressing, perhaps not. The fact is, it's irrelevant to the OP.


just changing the law around trans fat saves more people than instituting draconian laws to eliminate terrorism, even more so if looking only at the US.

Draconian? How are any of the proposals I mentioned draconian?

There is no reason for the US to further restrict freedom and spend more to prevent terrorism when they could apply those resources to preventing medical errors and save tenfold if not hundreds of thousands of lives in just the US.

Allowing unlimited freedom at the expense of other lives isn't acceptable. And besides, dealing with pressing issues are a problem that only the government can fix. Individuals can't help themselves from being attacked when the government doesn't do anything meaningful to help. I'm not advocating for interventionism. I'm advocating that the US take necessary measures to prevent terrorism from becoming a bigger problem than it already is.

That is why this entire GOP response to San Bernardino shows they lack judgement and knowledge.

Then what response would you support? If you agree that the US should have open borders and that we should have no surveillance or checks at any time, then what is going to stop terrorism?

I wouldn't stop doing what we are doing. Maybe tweak some things. I'm just questioning whether the gains from doing more will be worth the costs. Since 9/ 11 terrorism in the US has by mostly been contained.

It was before 9/11 as well, though. Terrorism as a whole has increased a lot lately, and we've seen it in the US, too. San Bernadino, for example. The chances of it entering the US more than it already has is pretty good, solely because we've seen an increase in terrorism WORLDWIDE, not contained to the Middle East. We should take preventionist action now, rather than paying for the consequences later. As for the costs, neither of the things I mentioned would be very costly. Immigration reform and surveillance -- neither of the two (under my proposal) are draconian or excessively costly.

If that is the case we should begin profiling radical right wing males as they have killed more Americans in the last 10 years than radical Islamic terrorists.

That means all gun sales should be tracked including adding technology to track a guns location.

BTW you didn't outline much specifics. You mention that we should have Israel's model. That by the way includes punishing family members of terrorists. Dylan Roof's family home should be razed just like all the terrorists that took over the federal park on OR.

Look, what you've said below is true... you're being facetious. You know very well that most of that isn't necessary. Also, I didn't say use Israel's exact model, but model after the aspects of their plans that have been successful in preventing terrorist attacks, adjusted to US culture as best as possible.

Realize I'm being facetious, but the sauce for the goose is the sauce for the gander.

I realize that...
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW